Archive for December 17th, 2012

Obama has talked tough before, but done little for gun control (VIDEO)

by:

President Obama is winning praise for his poignant speech Sunday night in Connecticut in response to the Sandy Hook shootings.

But while he’s talked tough — and occasionally poignantly — during his first term about removing what he described as “weapons that were designed for soldiers in war theaters” from the streets, he has accomplished little. Then again, neither have other federal legislators – for reasons we spelled out here.

ABC News’ Jake Tapper pressed White House press secretary Jay Carney to name one piece of legislation with Obama’s name on it that would curb such weapons. Carney replied with a lot of “complex problems come with complex solutions” smoke and mirrors.

Key line comes from Tapper at the end of their interaction: “So the answer is no.”

Here’s the transcript:

TAPPER: OK, and lastly, Jay, after the Tucson shooting that left Congresswoman Gabby Giffords seriously wounded and six others dead, including a little girl, the president wrote an op-ed in 2011 in the Arizona Star, and he talked about the gun restrictions he favored.

He said that the laws on the books should be enforced more when it came to the background check. It relies on data supplied by states, but the data is often incomplete and inadequate; we must do better. Second, we should reward the states that provide the best data. And third, we should make the system faster and nimbler. So that was about — that was almost two years ago. So what’s the progress -

CARNEY: Well, the fact is — I mean, I would refer you to the Justice Department for the specifics. But we have taken steps, specifically on the issue of background checks, to make the system more thorough and complete because this is a key component of an effort to enforce existing laws that, when properly enforced, do not allow weapons to fall into the hands of those who should not have them under existing law. So that’s an important component. We have taken steps, and I’m sure that will be part of the broader discussion moving forward. But it is an issue that we have taken steps on because the background check system — making it more complete and thorough is an important component.

TAPPER: And lastly, Jay, in the October presidential debate, the president said — one of the debates – “weapons that were designed for soldiers in war theaters don’t belong on our streets.” Can you name one thing the president has done in the last four years to help remove weapons of war from our streets?

CARNEY: You know, there’s no question, Jake, that the scourge of gun violence is a problem that has not sufficiently been addressed, because, as we saw in Newtown, we continue to have horrific tragedies that result in innocent victims. The president supports the assault weapons ban and the reinstatement of the assault weapons ban. But we have to –

TAPPER: I don’t mean “supports.” I mean, like, have you taken one measure, one act — one — to remove the weapons of war that he talks about?

CARNEY: Again, he supports legislation that is designed to ban some weapons, but as you know, this is a complex –

TAPPER: Anyone can support something.

CARNEY: — this is a complex issue, and — that requires complex solutions. And, you know, he looks forward to engaging the American people in an effort to do more. As he made clear last night, we need to change, we have not done enough — we as a nation. And, you know, he will in coming weeks use the power of his office to try to help make that change.

TAPPER: OK, so the answer is “no.”

The List: Tim Scott will become just 7th African American senator

by:

South Carolina Republican Tim Scott will become just the seventh African American in American history to serve in the U.S. Senate when he is sworn in to replace Jim DeMint.

He will be the fourth Republican African American senator and the third from the Deep South. Three African American Democrats — all from Illinois — have served.

Each of the African American senators has represented a historic first.

Here is the list and the historical significance of each choice:

1. Hiram Rhodes Revels
Mississippi
Republican
1870-1871

First African American chosen for the Senate (by the Mississippi state senate).

2. Blanche Kelso Bruce
Mississippi
Republican
1875-1881

Only former slave to serve in the U.S. Senate.
First African American chosen for a full six-year Senate term.
Youngest African American to serve in Senate (34).

3. Edward William Brooke III
Massachusetts
Republican
1967-1979

First African American senator from a northern state.
First popularly elected African American senator.
Only African American senator to win re-election.

4. Carol Moseley Braun
Illinois
Democrat
1993-1999

First African American woman elected to the Senate.
First African American Democrat to serve in the Senate.

5. Barack Hussein Obama
Illinois
Democrat
2005-2008

First African American Democratic man elected to the Senate.
Won first general election contest featuring two African American major party candidates.
First African American senator to resign to become president.

6. Roland Wallace Burris
Illinois
Democrat
2008-2010

First African American to succeed another African American senator.
First African American appointed to the Senate.
Oldest African American senator (73).

7. Timothy Eugene Scott
South Carolina
Republican
2013-

First African American senator from the former Confederacy since the end of Reconstruction.
First African American Republican appointed to the Senate.

Here’s $24 million reasons politicians fear the NRA. Should they? (VIDEO)

by:

The simple answer to why few politicians have dared propose any new gun control legislation: They fear the lobbying power of the National Rifle Association.

But should they? Yes, the NRA spent $24 million on the 2012 election cycle, but as we’ve written before they had one of the WORST return-on-investments of any outside spender. Only 2.2 percent of the campaigns they supported in 2012 had the desired result, according to the nonpartisan Sunlight Foundation.

In 2012, the 141-year-old NRA spent $16.8 million either to support or oppose federal candidates, according to the nonpartisan Sunlight Foundation.

That included $5.8 million against President Obama, who pledged during his Sunday night speech in Connecticut to …”

The NRA’s Institute for Legislative Action also spent another $7.45 million on candidates, including California Republicans Ricky Gill, Rep. Jeff Denham, Rep. Gary Miller, Rep. Brian Bilbray, David Valadao and Tony Strickland.

As Sunlight put it, “The NRA has spent 73 times what the leading pro-gun control advocacy organization, the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, has spent on lobbying in the 112th Congress ($4.4 million to $60,000, through the second quarter of 2012), and 4,143 times what the Brady Campaign spent on the 2012 election ($24.28 million to $5,816).”

Here’s what Sen. Dianne Feinstein said Sunday on “Meet the Press” about her plans to introduce the assault weapons ban:

Rep. Gohmert says teachers packing heat — not gun control — is the way to go

by:

Rep. Louie Gohmert, R-Tyler. (Harry Hamburg / The Associated Press)

Just days after the Sandy Hook elementary school shooting and the gun debate is already heating up.

Appearing on Fox News Sunday with Chris Wallace, Texas Rep. Louie Gohmert lamented the fact that the teachers at Sandy Hook Elementary School were not armed, having the ability to kill the shooter. Having made some sweeping claims in his defense of current gun laws, Gohmert attracted the attention of Washington Post’s fact checkers. They specifically focused on Gohmert’s claim that concealed-carry laws decrease crime rates.

While on the show, Gohmert argued:

“And to face facts are that every time guns have been allowed, concealed-carry has been allowed, the crime rate has gone down. Washington, D.C. around us ought to be the safest place in America and it’s not. Chicago ought to be safe. It’s not, because their gun laws don’t work.”

As the nation well knows, gun control is not an easy topic to talk about. Same could be said for the concealed-carry, or “right-to-carry,” laws.

The Washington Post found that while the research on the correlation of such laws and drop in crimes is not as black and white as one would hope.

Research by John Lott, who Gohmert referenced while speaking with Wallace, and David Mustard shows some correlation between the two and is even cited by the NRA. Lott and Mustard’s work has drawn a lot of criticism over the years. An analysis of their work, reference by the fact checkers, claims that the evidence that enactment of these laws lead to less crime is “limited, sporadic, and extraordinarily fragile.”

Gohmert received three Pinocchios from the Post for his claim, mainly for his insistence that “right-to-carry” laws always lead to reduction in crime rate. The Post notes that even if the correlation was more frequent and not as sporadic as it now appears, there are usually many other factors that play an important role reducing crime rate and would need to be acknowledged.

Gohmert’s stance on Sunday echoed what many predicted the pro-gun argument to be – that if someone within the school was armed, they could have stopped Adam Lanza, the shooter, before he claimed the lives of all his victims. While on the show, Gohmert said:

“You know, having been a judge and having reviewed photographs of these horrific scenes and knowing that children have these defensive wounds, gun shots through their arms and hands as they try to protect themselves, and, hearing the heroic stories of the principal, lunging, trying to protect — Chris, I wish to God she had had an M-4 in her office, locked up so when she heard gunfire, she pulls it out and she didn’t have to lunge heroically with nothing in her hands, but she takes him out, takes his head off before he can kill those precious kids.”

On the jump: Complete transcript of Louie Gohmert’s Fox appearanceGOHMERT: Once we have this actually open dialogue about the situation, Chris, you find out that — and John Lott has done some great investigation and study into this. Every mass killing of more than three people in recent history has been in a place where guns were prohibited. These — except for one, they choose this place, they know no one will be armed.

You know, having been a judge and having reviewed photographs of these horrific scenes and knowing that children have these defensive wounds, gun shots through their arms and hands as they try to protect themselves, and, hearing the heroic stories of the principal, lunging, trying to protect — Chris, I wish to god she had had an M-4 in her office, locked up so when she heard gunfire, she pulls it out and she didn’t have to lunge heroically with nothing in her hands, but she takes him out, takes his head off before he can kill those precious kids.

WALLACE: I understand the right to bear arms and the Supreme Court has made it clear that the founders meant what they said when they put the right to bear arms in the Constitution, but let me ask you the question Dick Durbin asked. Why do people need these semi- automatic weapons?

I was reading about the Glock he had and the Sig Sauer he had, five bullets a second. There is the Bushmaster. I mean, these were created for law enforcement. These were created for the military. Why does the average person — I can understand a hunting rifle, I can understand (inaudible), why do they need these weapons of mass destruction?

GOHMERT: Well, for the reason George Washington said a free people should be an armed people. It ensures against the tyranny of the government. If they know that the biggest army is the American people, then you don’t have the tyranny that came from King George. That is why it was put in there, that’s why once you start drawing the line, where do you stop? And that’s why it is important to not just look emotionally our reaction Chris is to immediately say let’s get rid of all guns, but that’s why you do that as a judge, you react emotionally, but you use your head and you look at the facts.

And the face facts are that every time guns have been allowed, concealed-carry has been allowed, the crime rate has gone down. Washington, D.C. around us ought to be the safest place in America and it’s not. Chicago ought to be safe. It’s not, because their gun laws don’t work.

New poll shows support for gun control at a five-year high

by:

Support for stricter gun control measures has reached a five-year high in the aftermath of the Connecticut school massacre, according to a new ABC News/Washington Post poll released today.

Fifty-four percent of Americans back new controls on guns — and 59 percent back curbs on the high-capacity ammunition clips used in many of the recent shooting rampages. Still, the overall support for tighter restrictions has increased only modestly in recent years.

Two major differences are evident in the new polling. Partisan and ideological gaps appear to be narrowing on some gun issues, including high-capacity ammunition clips. And most Americans now say that the Newtown massacre reflects broader problems in society rather than an isolated act of a troubled person.

Another shift: Gun control supporters now have more intensity than opponents of stricter controls. Forty-four percent of Americans say they “strongly” favor stricter action while 32 percent say they oppose new controls “strongly.” The gap more than doubles when Americans are asked whether they’d ban high-capacity clips: 47 percent strongly favor such a ban while 29 percent strongly oppose it.

Support for stricter gun control peaked at 67 percent in 1999 and 2000 but diminished significantly after the September 11 terrorist attacks in 2001.

Here are the latest support levels for major gun control proposals, according to an ABC poll analysis:

On specific measures, 52 percent favor banning semi-automatic handguns (it’s been 48 and 55 percent in previous polls) and 59 percent support banning high-capacity clips that carry more than 10 bullets (it was a similar 57 percent in early 2011, after the Tucson shootings). Banning the sale of handguns entirely (except for law enforcement) remains broadly unpopular, with 71 percent opposed, numerically a new high in results since 1999.

When it comes to banning handguns, the “intensity” factor remains with Second Amendment backers. Overall, 56 percent of Americans say they would “strongly” oppose a handgun ban. Twenty percent strongly favor it.